Senin, 18 Oktober 2010

GENERATIVITY

Generativity and the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops’
Responses to Priests’ Sexual Abuse of Minors
Clare McGrath-Merkle
Published online: 25 September 2009
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract
are applied to ‘‘the clerical abuse crisis,’’ in which 111 U.S. Roman Catholic bishops
protected priests rather than safeguard children. The goal was to discover what psychological
dispositions led bishops to act in the manner they did. A case is made that pre-existing
tendencies coupled with an all-male, celibate environment and formation indoctrination led
to deficits in psychological development, moral judgment and leadership capacity, revealing
an Episcopal subculture characterized by pseudo-speciation and authoritism.
In this article, Erik Erikson’s and subsequent researchers’ ideas on generativity
Keywords
Generativity Clerical abuse crisis Erik Erikson Roman Catholic bishops
Authoritism
Introduction
It seems intuitively right that some kinds of highly effective leaders owe their success
to their generative capacities and inclinations. Major failings in leadership may
signal shortcomings in generativity as well. To our knowledge, however, no research
or theorizing has focused explicitly on the relations between generativity and leadership
(McAdams and De St. Aubin
Erik Erikson’s ideal of
in depth by subsequent thinkers and researchers. This article explores these ideas and
research findings and relates them to what has been called ‘‘the clerical abuse crisis,’’ in
which a majority of U.S. Roman Catholic bishops protected priests rather than safeguard
children. The goal is to discover what, if any, psychological dispositions led bishops to act
in the manner they did.


C. McGrath-Merkle, OCDS, MA, MTS.
C. McGrath-Merkle (
Department of Theology and Religious Studies (spirituality track),
The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: cmm4@verizon.net
1998, p. 489).generativity and its maladaptive expressions have been explored&)
123
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
DOI 10.1007/s10943-009-9288-0
A summary of the record of bishops’ actions in the crisis will be presented, followed by
a review of Erikson’s and others’ ideas on generativity as possibly applicable to the
bishops’ actions. Conclusions supported by the findings of studies on generativity will be
linked to studies of Roman Catholic seminarians and priests, as well as of one study of
Roman Catholic bishops involved in the crisis. Together, a picture will be developed of a
catastrophic failure of generativity in Roman Catholic leadership’s handling of the sexual
abuse of minors over decades.
The Anatomy of a Scandal
The Dallas Morning News
detailing the actions of an estimated two-thirds of U.S. Roman Catholic bishops who
protected priests involved in the sexual abuse of children (Special Reports
accompanying article, reporters Egerton and Dunklin asserted:
111 bishops’ involvement took many forms, from ignoring warnings about suspicious
behavior to keeping priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing,
diagnosis of sexual disorders, legal settlements, even criminal convictions
explaining why they let accused and even confirmed abusers keep working, bishops
frequently give a two-part defense: They did what they did many years ago, relying
on the advice of skilled therapists who had treated the priests (Egerton and Dunklin
hosts a Web site that has included, since 2002, a database2003). In theIn
2002
Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest who has served as a counselor and psychotherapist
to lay Catholics with a history of sexual involvement with Catholic priests and
religious, noted in the same article that even so, bishops ‘‘rarely alerted police and
sometimes pressed victims not to, allowing criminals to escape the consequence of their
crimes’’ (Egerton and Dunklin
abuses were alleged:
In my practice I have treated victims of sexual misconduct by Catholic priests and
religious and reviewed multiple case histories. Some patients report misconduct to
Chancery Offices, bishops, and religious superiors. In response to their complaints,
victims consistently report that they were seen as traitors and disloyal to their church.
The victims felt that they were viewed as seducers, seductresses, sinners, or, in some
cases, opportunists, and treated largely without sympathy. (Sipe
In a report prepared for the United States Catholic Bishops Conference, diocesan files
were reviewed in a blind study (Terry and Tallon
pattern of responses of bishops to substantiated allegations of child sexual abuse by priests
was detailed. In 2.6% of cases, no actions were taken; in over 9% of cases, priests were
merely reprimanded and returned to active ministry. In over 7% of cases, they were sent on
spiritual retreats. Only 6.1% were removed from the clergy. By far, the majority of priests
were sent into psychological treatment (53.3%). These statistics indicate the clerical sexual
abuse crisis, as it has been termed, was an Episcopal crisis. The question we propose to
explore is why did religious leaders choose to protect criminals rather than children? First,
we will review Erikson’s and others’ ideas about generativity and concomitant developmental
issues in order to shed light on the question.
).2002). Sipe also noted that leaders mistreated victims when2007)2004, Part V). Among other facts, the
74 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
123
Generativity
By way of a review of Erik Erikson’s theory of generativity, a short description of the
larger framework of his ideas begins this section. Erikson posited what he called the ‘‘life
cycle theory,’’ comprised of the notion that humans pass through eight developmental
stages from childhood through old age, the first five resembling Freud’s psychosexual
stages (Pomper
pathologies related to family dynamics (as with Freud) but also the basic strengths that
each individual learns at each stage in relation to others, including society at large. Erikson
introduced the idea of a developmental task associated with each stage which must also be
completed before new tasks arise. This task presents a psychosocial crisis (which for
Erikson was a neutral not negative term). The response can be either positive or negative. If
positive, a virtue is achieved, whereas if negative, what Erikson termed a ‘‘ritualism’’
results. In the case of the seventh stage of life, or middle adulthood, Erikson posited that
the crisis is the choice one must make between generativity and stagnation (Zock
p. 39).
Erikson defined the ethical human being as the generative adult. For Erikson, the
generative adult treats others as worthy equals; never harms others on purpose; maintains
the world positively for future generations; and cares for children and others (Erikson, as
cited in Hoare
bonds of intimacy with others in earlier stages, he or she is then ready to be generative and
assume responsibility for nurturing children and caring for the larger society (Erikson,
cited in McAdams and De St. Aubin, Eds.
respond positively at this stage, stagnation results. What then develops is what Erikson
called the ritualism of authoritism, characterized by the misuse of authority, rejection of
outsiders and cruelty toward children (Wright
whether the bishops’ failure to protect children signals the possible maladaption called
authoritism. A look at other thinkers and researchers who have also studied Erikson’s
notion of generativity can help to trace the roots of
Browning explained and expanded the idea of generativity to include the idea of
‘‘Generative Man,’’ a conceptualization of what the best human person could be (Browning
1985, pp. 34, 35). Each stage includes not only the categorization of core1990,2002, p. 76). Once an adult has successfully achieved a sense of identity and1998, p. xx). However, if the adult fails to1982, pp. 94, 96). The question arises as toauthoritism in this case.
1973
thought’’ (Browning, p. 24). Important in Erikson’s conceptualization of generativity was
the idea that the virtue of care that emerges when generativity is achieved is not just related
to one’s own children, but involves care and concern for the entire species and the planet
(Browning, pp. 146, 163). For Erikson, it was crucial that humankind’s concern for their
own particular tribe or culture be raised to a level that included an ethical concern for all
(Browning, p. 169).
It is apparent that the bishops were more concerned with their own men than with
children. Their reactions to victim’s allegations included at least an insensitivity to their
needs, treating them as outsiders, even enemies of the Church. Sipe’s observations indicate
abuse of pastoral authority in this regard. To understand how the abuse of authority is
related to the psychological trait of authoritism, a closer look at generativity is necessary.
The Anatomy of Generativity
McAdams et al. (
generativity based on Erikson’s work and other researchers’ related findings. According to
). According to Browning, generativity was ‘‘the normative center of Erikson’s1998) (McAdams and De St. Aubin 1998, p. 8) adapted a model of
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 75
123
this adaptation, which they call the ‘‘anatomy of generativity,’’ there are seven features of
generativity, paraphrased as follows:
(a) An desire for agentic immortality and communal nurturance combined with
(b) A cultural demand, which produces
(c) A concern for the next generation, reinforced by
(d) The belief in the goodness or worthiness of the species, leading to
(e) A commitment, which then produces
(f) Generative action, which is then given meaning in
(g) A narration of generativity (part of life story and identity).
An important component of this definition of generativity is that of compelling desire,
which the authors base on Bakan’s concepts of agency and communion (Bakan, as cited in
McAdams and De St. Aubin
and communion includes the desire to nurture. These two impulses are natural to every
human being. That the natural tendency to wish to protect children was replaced by the
desire to protect molesters possibly signals a serious over-identification by bishops with
priests and the Church. Erikson would label this phenomenon an example of pseudospeciation,
or the tendency to identify with one’s own at the expense of others (Erikson
1998, p. 13). Agency includes the desire to reproduce oneself,
1975
and criminal negligence on the part of the bishops. This failure of generativity may have
roots in missed life experiences and earlier failures in development, as the following
research suggests.
Relevant General Studies
How is it that generative instincts could be missing in Catholic bishops? One study points
to a possible reason. McAdams and De St. Aubin constructed a 20-item self-report
questionnaire to measure individual differences in generativity (McAdams and De St.
Aubin, cited in McAdams and De St. Aubin
model predicted, midlife adults scored significantly higher than young and older adults on
generativity measures. Importantly, fathers scored significantly higher in generativity
measures than non-fathers when compared to their female counterparts, whose generativity
scores were not a direct function of motherhood (McAdams and De St. Aubin
This study points to the fact that men who do not have children themselves are less
generative than fathers. It also suggests a predisposition on the part of bishops to lack
generative character traits due to celibacy.
In a review of various studies, a body of literature on generativity, and their own
longitudinal study, Stewart and Venderwater (
generativity in midlife could be the result of earlier developmental problems (McAdams
and De St. Aubin
cycle: the desire for generativity emerging in early adulthood; the awareness of generativity
and satisfaction in being generative gathering in middle years; and a sense of
accomplishment regarding generativity in later years (McAdams and De St. Aubin
94). The authors saw three dilemmas in Erikson’s theories as applicable to the phenomenon
of generativity: his claim that each stage has a unique time but with issues from that stage
present in all ages; his strongly defined idea of generativity as being associated with
procreation but also with productivity and creativity; and his notion that the achievement of
generativity depends on successful identity formation and resolution of intimacy issues.
(For the authors, this last definition was at issue since women may be intimate and be
, pp. 176–177). This group over-identification or pseudo-speciation led to complicity1998, p. 20). They found that, as Erikson’s1998, p. 21).1993) pointed to the possibility that failure at1998). They hypothesized three phases in generativity during the life1998, p.
76 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
123
parents before their identities are formed; McAdams and De St. Aubin, pp. 78–79.) They
noted a concern that generativity may not be found in some groups blocked from developing
firm identities (Peterson, referenced in McAdams and De St. Aubin, p. 95). This
study leads us to ask whether generativity may have eluded the Catholic bishops involved
in protecting priests because of a failure to develop their own firm identities. A look at
recent research into Erikson’s unpublished works can help us develop a fuller picture of
what happens when identity malformation and missed life experience result in stagnation,
lack of insight and unethical behavior.
Some New Findings on Erikson’s Ideas on Generativity
Hoare published a review of Erik Erikson’s unpublished papers, yielding material with
which to understand his ideas on adult development and generativity (Hoare
example, Erikson pointed to Freud in underscoring the importance of surmounting narcissism
not only in caring for one’s own children, but for the future of humankind:
I think he [Freud] made the point that only when man has faced his neurotic isolation
and stagnation, is he free to let his imagination and his sense of truth come up against
the existential dilemmas which transcend passing realities. (Erikson, cited in Hoare
2002). For
2002
For Erikson, each generation of adults is called to ensure the resources of trust for the
next generation. Importantly, he felt that this treasury of trust is what makes development
even possible (Erikson, cited in Hoare
not burden youth with their own inherited negatives. He stated, ‘‘Generativity ends when
we transmit the curse of unlived potentials to coming generations’’ (Erikson, cited in
Hoare, p. 188). For Erikson, both trust and wisdom are necessary to allow for the safe
nurturance of children. Survivors of sexual abuse have found their trust betrayed on the
deepest levels. While Church leaders are called to speak out on the great moral issues of
the day and be models themselves of pastoral care and self-sacrifice, they, by their words
and actions, showed a grievous breach of trust by their failure to protect children. Was it
their own unlived potentials that blinded them to their responsibilities? What are the
conditions that could have fostered the loss of this treasury of trust due to failed
generativity?
Kotre wrote that in the late 1970s, cultural observers became worried over the growing
phenomenon of the adult who was uninterested in having children or was unwilling to
sacrifice for them. Causes of this egocentrism were proposed to be such things as loosening
family ties, secularization, dwindling natural resources and the contraceptive revolution,
among others (Kotre
contemporary U.S. society was in a crisis of generativity due to a concern for immediate
well-being. As a result of this crisis, Bellah called for a ‘‘politics of generativity’’ in which
economic and political institutions would be anchored in a moral discourse in order to
address the crisis (McAdams and De St. Aubin
‘‘good enough culture’’ that was characterized by, among other things, shared values and
elders who are guides that inspire others (Kotre
It is clear that, in 2008, these problems with generativity and the postmodern lifestyle
still exist. Priests and bishops all have been raised and exposed to the same societal forces
as laypersons, and so could be open to these same forces of egocentrism in the wider
culture. However, religious leaders from other faiths and denominations did not respond in
, p. 187)2002, p. 187). Erikson also felt that adults should1984, p. 1). Bellah and his colleagues argued in The Good Society that1998, xxi). Kotre, as well, proposed the1984, p. 261).
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 77
123
the same way as Catholic bishops when sexual predators were found in their ranks. What
might be the differences between them?
A further review of Erikson’s unpublished papers clarifies some of these issues. In them,
we find intricacies of his understanding of generativity, what is necessary for it to flourish
and what happens when it does not. In a chapter called ‘‘The Wise Adult,’’ Hoare details
that Erikson, in later life, realized that he had attributed wisdom and its virtue of integrity
to the last stage of old age, whereas they were actually important qualities of middle
adulthood related to the ability to care for others. For Erikson, the wise and mature middleaged
adult was intimate and caring (Hoare
adult had three main characteristics: generosity of being; vital interplay with cherished
others; and a ‘‘we-ness’’ instead of ‘‘asceticism’’ (Erikson, cited in Hoare
Importantly, Erikson (along with Freud) held that ‘‘only a ‘mature genitality’ would result
in ‘intellectual clarity, sexual mutuality, and considerate love’’’ (Erikson, cited in Hoare
2002, pp. 185, 186). His version of the mature2002, p. 190),
2002
insight is the main tool that motivates adults to behave ethically. Generativity itself is
based on the insight one has of one’s responsibilities. Important to our analysis, Erikson
saw a person’s secret guilt and repressed rage as preventing this insight (Erikson, cited in
Hoare
The questions become whether celibate clerics can be generative and whether celibacy
is related somehow not only to a higher incidence of sexual misconduct but also
to the character traits of a lack of mature judgment and care on the part of Catholic
bishops.
Erikson’s unpublished works elucidate here. Earlier in his career, Erikson had held that
having children was a necessity in achieving generativity and care. By 1963, he ‘‘abandoned
his parenting requirement’’ (Hoare
As to the institutions which safeguard and reinforce generativity, one can only say
that all institutions codify the ethics of generative succession. Even where philosophical
and spiritual tradition suggests the renunciation of the right to procreate or
to produce, such early turn to ‘‘ultimate concerns,’’ wherever instituted in monastic
movements, strives to settle at the same time the matter of its relationship to the Care
for creatures of the world and to the Charity which is felt to transcend it (Erikson
, p. 189). Erikson also posited that lack of insight could cause unethical behavior since2002, p. 172).2002, p. 190). He had earlier written:
1985
However, in later life, he returned to the idea that parenthood was central to the
generative adult (E. Erikson and J. Erikson, cited in Hoare
reasons why generativity may be lacking in an adult are given as follows: faulty identification
with parents; the lack of faith and excessive self-love (Erikson, cited in Hoare
, pp. 267–268).2002, p. 190). For Erikson, the
2002
according to one study we will review.)
Another change in Erikson’s thinking was his notion of the counterpart to generativity,
or stagnation. He later changed the name of this maladaption to ‘‘rejectivity.’’ Importantly,
this rejectivity is characterized by an individual turning against others and the self, cruelty
toward children, prejudices against others and the creation of more than one can care for
(Hoare
where rejectivity has become a propensity. As Sipe wrote, bishops rejected many of the
claims of the abused, even treating them as ‘‘traitors.’’ This indicates that rejectivity and
authoritism were aspects of their response.
, p. 191). (An over-attachment to parents is one symptom of underdeveloped seminarians,2002, p. 191). Erikson also pointed to modern culture itself as being the milieu
78 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
123
Religious Leadership and Generativity
Unfortunately, the recent clerical sex abuse crisis has given fodder to the idea that religiousness
is related to sexual deviancy. Erikson would disagree. Whereas Freud viewed
religion as an ‘‘illusion’’ with its strength derived from ‘‘its readiness to fit in with our
instinctual wishful impulses’’ (Freud
human expression. Dillon and Wink
based on Erikson’s own interest in the interplay between spirituality and generativity
(Dillon and Wink, in De St. Aubin et al.
himself cited the Prayer of St. Francis as expressing the ‘‘active choice’’ to be generative.
He also saw generativity expressed in the Hindu concept of ‘‘the maintenance of the
world’’ and karma, as well as in the Christian Golden Rule (Erikson, cited in De St. Aubin
et al.
religiousness was significantly more likely to be associated with the communal and
interpersonal caring aspects of generativity. They also found that there was a positive
relation between religiousness, spirituality and generativity (De St. Aubin et al.
p. 161).
Erikson himself wrote extensively on the faith life of religious leaders he saw as
embodying the virtues of care, ethics and generativity which could transform their times.
Gandhi was an example of a person of positive religious leadership according to Erikson.
Erikson saw mother/child mutuality as the closest adaptive pattern for the positive
1990, p. 216), Erikson saw religion as a positive2003 conducted research on generativity and spirituality2003, 153). They wrote that Erikson2003, pp. 153–154). In these authors’ research on generativity, they found that2003,ritualization
of conflict in the political realm and viewed Gandhi as representative of a
motherly form of religious leadership that could bring together warring factions and create
a universal ethic (Pomper
that the concept of generativity shares space with the concepts of creativity and leadership,
among others’’ (McAdams and De St. Aubin
idea that authority is earned only by principled behavior (Hoare
assume authority and take on leadership for him was middle adulthood, since neither
ideological youth nor moralistic elders should have the mantle of leadership (Hoare
p. 78). Based on these observations, the question to ask is how religious leadership could
take on such a dark aspect, given the fact that men who rise to pastoral leadership prepare
for it through long and careful training. A look at the psychology of the priesthood would
give us possible answers.
Studies of Seminarians, Priests and Bishops
Hopkins reviewed a variety of studies of seminarians and priests. The main aim of his work
was to demonstrate how certain aspects of institutional ideology and practice impinge upon
normal developmental stages of priests and what their ethical implications might be. His
main concern was that of Erikson’s: that religious institutions have the ability to provide a
basic sense of trust and an ideology that supports good resolutions of developmental crises
(Hopkins
Erikson’s work being that of Lavoie in 1968 (Lavoie, cited in Hopkins
key finding of this study was the higher incidence of identity foreclosure in Catholic
seminaries than in other settings (Lavoie cited in Hopkins, p. 189). Lavoie defined identity
foreclosure as follows:
1985, pp. 109–111). McAdams wrote that ‘‘Erikson suggested1998, p. 488). However, Erikson posited the2002, p. 77). The time to2002,1979, p. 10). Hopkins cited a number of studies, with the first study informed by1979, p. 186). The
ascribed to him by others
an individual under pressure, usually from others, prematurely accepts an identityIn the case of foreclosure, an identity has been firmly
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 79
123
accepted, but not on the basis of personal involvement with prior identity (Lavoie,
quoted in Hopkins
Hopkins argued that this foreclosure may explain what has been called a crisis in
priestly identity, begun in a time of ideological and cultural turmoil.
Brooks gathered data from 1919 to 1961, compiling a sociological profile on seminary
candidates. He found they were dependent on strong mother–son bonds; valued obedience
over autonomous intellectual orientation; were less competitive and less aggressive; and
had had a protective home where opportunity for initiative and decision-making were
restricted (Brooks, cited in Hopkins
These and other studies are summarized in Hopkins’ dissertation, with his overall
summary conclusions being that among other characteristics, Roman Catholic clergy, at
the time of these studies, felt especially set apart, were in greater need of giving and
receiving emotional support, and experienced a lack of self-differentiation and a fusion
with their fellow priests and the institution of the Church itself. Of particular note were the
characteristics of strong mother bonding and the fusion of identities, both of which, as
already cited, Erikson indicated were predictors of failed generativity (Hopkins
p. 211).
Among all of the studies Hopkins cited, he considered the most reliable one commissioned
by the U.S. bishops in 1969 and conducted by Kennedy and Heckler (1972, cited in
Hopkins, pp. 2–15). Utilizing Eriksonian theory and via in-depth interviews of 271 priests,
the researchers found that a large majority of priests studied were considered ‘‘underdeveloped’’
by the professional clinical psychologists of Loyola University who studied the
data. This underdevelopment was in two areas: an unsureness of identity and an ‘‘almost
non-existent experience of intimacy during their adult years.’’ Key findings included that
few of the priests experienced true friendships; there was evidence of a lack of understanding
of their own emotional life; there was a use of repression and intellectualization as
defenses against any depth of feeling; that celibacy supported isolation and that being
socially deprived resulted in impoverishment in later years.
While Kennedy and Heckler viewed these priests as representative of the general
American male populations, they also thought their scoring should be better, given their
long and intensive training for ministry. They assumed that problems manifesting in
underdeveloped priests were those related to poor identity and intimacy crisis resolution
because of previous, failed crises resolutions:
For many of these individuals, no conscious vocational choice based on their own
interest and abilities ever took place
by the expectations of others rather than the discovery of themselves. (Kennedy and
Heckler, as quoted in Hopkins
As already noted, Erikson saw problems with identity and intimacy formation as preventing
generativity in mature adults. Leading lives shaped by others’ expectations,
identity foreclosure and lack of intimacy, bishops may have been susceptible to pressure to
conform. This pressure could lead bishops to defer to institutional expectations, psychiatrists
and legal counsel when deciding whether to aid minors or protect the Church. In
support of this hypothesis are two studies. Wauck compared faculty ratings of 207 diocesan
seminarians. He found those seminarians with more deviant Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory scores were rated more favorably by faculty (Wauck, cited in Hopkins
1979, p. 186).1979, p. 357).1979,.Indeed, their lives have been notably shaped1979, p. 196)
1979
concluded that those who stayed were characterized by greater submissiveness. They were
, p. 217). In a study by Lee, of those who stayed in seminary and those who left, he
80 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
123
considered less creative and showed a greater conformity in attitudes and behavior in social
interaction and in institutional investment (Lee, cited in Hopkins
here is a concept Hopkins later cited, that of Meissner’s idea of ‘‘pseudo-mutuality,’’
wherein there is a need to maintain a connection with others by fulfilling their needs and
expectations (Meissner, cited in Hopkins, p. 526). In a mention of bishops in his work,
Hopkins cited Greeley’s finding that bishops espouse traditional values more significantly
than priests (Greeley, cited in Hopkins, p. 361). Perhaps the combination of a conforming
psychology along with the pressure to defend the tradition of the priesthood created a blind
area of discernment for bishops. Other issues also contributed.
O’Dea, in his study of American Catholic anti-intellectualism, cited five characteristics
present in the context of the formation of priests: formalism (a rationalistic elaboration
based on fear), authoritarianism, clericalism, moralism and defensiveness. Many of the
elements of these traits, according to O’Dea, were present in those priests trained after
1962 (in the context of formation; O’Dea, cited in Hopkins
notion of pseudo-speciation as applied to the clerical subculture sheds light on why these
traits were fostered and maintained.
Additionally, in his treatment of issues of generativity and the priesthood, Hopkins
reiterated an Eriksonian idea that a reactivation of earlier issues causes problems in later
stages, most notably that of trust in the stage where generativity is at issue. A lack of trust
is linked to unethical actions, as Hopkins summarized:
If basic trust is not negotiated, we see the maldevelopment of autonomy manifest
itself in terms of overmanipulation of self. A precocious conscience, obsessiveness
and compulsive control of the environment ensues. In later life the person is governed
by the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Self-consciousness arises out of
the shame of being exposed or found out. One tries to get away with things. The
ability to have control without loss of self-esteem is critical to this stage (Erikson,
summarized in Hopkins
Lack of trust fosters a loss of belief in humankind, and the lack of the desire to welcome
others into community (Hopkins
of welcome by Church leaders and priests of the next generation of priests, not children. He
noted the collapse of recruitment of seminarians on the part of priests as a symptom of
older priests’ disaffection toward the priesthood (Hopkins
predicted no failure of generativity in priests:
One might expect a failure in this stage of generativity, given Kennedy’s findings of
profound failure in the stage of identity and intimacy among priests. No thorough
study now extant would substantiate a failure at this stage (Hopkins
Balboni, in a study of twenty bishops and six priest-perpetrators involved in the sexual
abuse crisis, asserted that bishops were primarily motivated by the desire to preserve the
institution and vocations. Bishops in the study were allowed to present their opinions as to
what happened in their regard. They related that they had viewed sexual abuse on the part
of priests as a private, moral failing with spiritual solutions (Balboni
had had as a motivation the desire to prevent scandal (Balboni
immaturity on the part of priests had not been seen as a negative but as a sign of docility
(Balboni
to share the issue of problem priests with other bishops lest they be seen as incapable of
dealing with their own problems. Cases were handled within their own dioceses (Balboni
1979, p. 222). Applicable1979, pp. 317–318). Erikson’s1979, pp. 439–440).1979, p. 524). Interestingly, Hopkins focused on the lack1979, p. 525). Of note, Hopkins1979, p. 524).1998, I.I.2). They also1998, I.IV.4). For them,1998, I.IV.5). According to Balboni, bishops also related that they had not wanted
1998
, I.IV.6). Balboni writes ‘‘Almost all the bishops said that bringing up at the NCCB
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 81
123
meeting malfeasance of any kind would have been seen as a weakness’’ (Balboni
footnote 45). Additionally, the bishops related that parents of sexually molested youth did
not want to press charges for fear of publicity, giving another reason for privacy (Balboni
1998, I,
1998
Balboni also reviewed O’Dea’s ideas on the pathology of institutions and related them
to bishops’ actions in the crisis, a topic related to Erikson’s ideas on pseudo-speciation.
This is a fruitful area of further inquiry in better understanding bishops’ action and psychologies.
Such concepts of O’Dea’s as institutional truncation involving symptoms of
authoritarianism, objectification, alienation and substitution for the letter of the law are key
concepts that, as we have reviewed, are applicable to problems in the psychological
development of priests, and which signal failed generativity (O’Dea, cited in Balboni
II.II, 18–24).
The bishops’ statements in this study indicate that they were acting alone in their
responses to clerical abuse. However, as cited, two-thirds of the American bishops acted
similarly, suggesting that their statements may not have been accurate. Contradicting the
bishops’ statements in Balboni’s study are the findings of Sipe, which indicate bishops
were in communication with each other about the issues, that the Church hierarchy placed
pressure on bishops to remain secretive about clerical abuse and that a widespread covert
sexuality in clerical ranks lent to the possibility of the blackmail of bishops. Sipe has
detailed his observations of the crisis over his years as a psychologist working with victims
in the following numbered paragraphs addressing the ‘‘unique character of the clerical
system’’: (Sipe
18. As recently as May 20, 2002 a judge on the Roman Rota (highest Vatican court)
wrote in a Vatican approved periodical that bishops should not report sexual violations
to civil authorities lest the image and authority of the Church be compromised
and victims harmed instead of being protected. (P. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, S.J.)
20. The awareness of transferring offending priests was so well accepted that it could
be a matter for open communication between all bishops. I have reviewed [
1960 s open letter from one bishop to all the American bishops asking if anyone was
interested in giving ministerial employment to an offending priest who could not be
reassigned in his own diocese.
29. Cardinals make a vow to the Pope to keep secret anything confided to them that if
revealed would cause harm or dishonor to the church
, I.V.2).1998,2004)sic](ZENIT 2003).1
38. Additionally, a significant proportion of priests introduces candidates for the
priesthood to sex. In my experience and studies 10% of priests report that they had
some sexual contact with a priest or fellow seminarian in the course of their studies.
This is a prominent fact in the histories of priests who abuse minors. This activity
also forms a basis for a network of priests sexually aware of each other’s personal
sexual proclivities, behaviors and past activity. This forms a formal and informal
1
Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his
Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of
the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with
the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor
to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and
faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the
law. So help me Almighty God.’’ Available from
Zenit_CardinalsOath.htm
82 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
ZENIT (2003), Cardinals’ Oath on Receiving Biretta: ‘‘I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holyhttp://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2003_10_21_.
123
tangle of possible blackmail. I have seen that very word used in correspondence
between a bishop and the Vatican.
45
obstruction of legitimate investigation of illegal and destructive activity by clergy.
The major reason for interference and this lack of leadership is the fear of exposing
the extent of sexual activity within the clerical system. This prevails over and above
the scandal of sexual abuse of minors. The Grand juries empanelled so far in 12
jurisdictions and the reports from four of them, clearly expose a pattern of neglecting
investigation, supervision, discipline, and reporting abusing priests to legitimate civil
authority. Collusion to intimidate victims and conspiracy to conceal abuse is also
prominent in the reports
.overwhelming evidence exists about past and present church resistance and
In support of his assertion that widespread covert sexuality lent to the possibility of the
blackmail of bishops, Sipe writes of his own 25-year study of both heterosexual and
homosexual populations of priests, in which 50% were found to be sexually active (Sipe
2005
One question that arises from this review is whether the studies of seminarians, priests
and bishops indicating identity foreclosure, lack of intimacy and failed generativity point
to a clerical culture that attracts and/or fosters child molesters.
).
Conclusion
The widespread cover-up on the part of U.S. Roman Catholic bishops of priests’ sexual
crimes against children is becoming more documented with time. Some of the causes cited
for the phenomenon of the cover-up include the desire to avoid scandal, a therapeutic
culture, Vatican-mandated secrecy, and fear of the exposure of the covert sexual activity of
bishops. Less known or highlighted are the psychological propensities that fostered
relinquishment of conscience and responsibility on the part of bishops.
Research on generativity in various populations and the psychological studies of
seminarians and priests suggest possible hidden causes. In the general population, men who
have never had children are less likely to be generative. In fact, modern culture itself does
not encourage generativity at this time. These findings point to the idea that both secularization
and mandated celibacy have contributed to a clerical environment that does not
identify with the needs of children. The evidence regarding priests who are underdeveloped
psychologically clearly indicates that identity foreclosure and intimacy deficits are key
indicators of failed generativity or authoritism. Based on this review, a case could be made
that pre-existing tendencies coupled with prolonged, sheltered, all-male, celibate environments
and formation indoctrination have led to deficits in psychological development,
moral judgment and leadership capacity on the part of bishops. The lack of identity
differentiation and the over-identification of priests with each other and the Church are the
same traits of bishops that have proven dangerous to children.
Erikson’s theory that failure to be generative in middle adulthood leads to stagnation,
the rejection of others, and cruelty to children is given more credence when the bishops’
handling of the clerical abuse crisis is taken into account. Erikson had explored the effects
on children of what he termed ‘‘de-ritualization.’’ As he wrote, ‘‘And indeed, it seems that
one prime result of catastrophic de-ritualization throughout history is the loss of the
instinctual impulse to protect children’’ (Erikson, p. 164). He pointed to the link between
individuals and ritual institutions:
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 83
123
pathology characterizing the malfunctioning of ritual institutions are closely related.
As ritualization fails to prevent the alternation of shameless impulsivity and
meticulous compulsivity, of excess and of self-restriction in individuals, so the
institution can fail to stem either widespread lawlessness or a punitive miscarriage of
justice. (Erikson
The scandal has brought to light that there was a catastrophic failure to safeguard
children and a disregard for the law. In Eriksonian terms related to generativity, the lack of
a mature genitality and concomitant insight on the part of bishops led to unethical behavior
promoted by a fear of being revealed and the compulsions to conform, to control and to
follow only the letter of the law. These characteristics appear to be constitutive of an
Episcopal subculture further characterized by pseudo-speciation and authoritism. Even if
considered similar developmentally to their secular peers, the bishops’ training and religious
formation should have produced a greater maturity in judgment and leadership (as
Heckler and Kennedy noted of underdeveloped priests when compared to their peers).
The synthesis conducted in this article suggests that further exploration is warranted
regarding the relationship between leadership in general, institutional maladaptions and
generativity, as suggested by O’Dea’s work. It is important to end with a note that one
study of public school administrators’ cover-up of sexual abuse of children indicates
similar responses on the part of school authorities with offenders (Shakeshaft and Cohan
the psychopathology attending the failure of everyday ritualization and the social1977, p. 97).
1994
victim, abuser or administrative populations with Church populations, however. Further
study of the similarities between bishops and school administrators would yield a better
understanding of authoritism in institutional leadership involving children in general.
Possible similarities include pressure from parents not to prosecute, the desire to selfprotect,
as well as possible pressure from higher level administration. Also at issue,
however, is why sexual molestation is tolerated at all, and whether school culture is as
steeped in hidden sexuality as clerical culture, what degree administrative leadership is
involved in these activities and whether there is a fear of exposure and blackmail as Sipe
asserted there is in clerical culture. It is logical that child molesters would be attracted to
environments with easy access to children, such as churches and schools, but what is the
link, if any, between leaders and molesters? Lastly, that children are so at risk in both these
settings suggests a serious societal problem that warrants increased legal protection for
children in all circumstances.
In conclusion, the recent Episcopal cover-up scandal in the Roman Catholic Church
illustrates that there exist serious deficits in both the psychological and the moral development
of its clerical leaders which specifically led to a crisis of failed generativity or
authoritism. Erikson saw the role of great religious leaders as working through the challenges
of a particular time for the good of all by working through the resolution of their
own life crises. Positing an important ‘‘mutual activation’’ between individual virtues and
institutional strengths, Erikson cautioned, however, that in speaking of ‘‘sick institutions,’’
one must not indulge in the assumption that psychiatric enlightenment as such will heal
society (Erikson
a crisis resolution of the issues discussed in this article in terms of either individual or
institutional maladaptions.
It is clear from the research cited that the Roman Catholic seminary system may have
contributed to a series of deficits in individual identity formation. Applicable here is
Erikson’s notion of what he termed ‘‘psycho-historical actuality,’’ or the ‘‘sum of historical
). Not enough information is documented to make an adequate comparison of those1994a, b, p. 155). This caveat would apply as well to any consideration of
84 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
123
facts and forces which are of immediate relevance to the adaptive anticipations and to the
maladaptive apprehensions in the individuals involved’’ (Erikson
developed in
institutional sanctions of sexual expressions untethered from psychosocial growth are also
important for further study of the genesis of the clerical identity crisis which led to
conditions fostering the molestation of children:
Social institutions here offer ideological rationales for a
moratorium
activity without social commitment, or in the form of sexual play without genital
engagement
Only when the Roman Catholic clerical culture has decisively resolved its crisis of
failed generativity or authoritism by means of a healthy identity formation of both priests
and bishops, will the Church have the moral authority to promote a culture of generativity
within secular society. Based on the Church’s lack of movement toward holding offending
bishops’ accountable, also an important factor in re-establishing its moral authority, the last
question which presents itself for study is whether there has been an over-identification
with clerical leadership on the part of the laity signaling an overall Roman Catholic culture
also bound by a psychology of authoritism and pseudo-speciation.
Nowhere does the quality of leadership become more apparent than in the interplay
of the inner deals the leader makes with himself and the inner deals he thinks he can
count on in those he leads
repress in ourselves and whom, in the name of what we have killed in ourselves, we
are ready to annihilate in the world at large—that is the most fateful human question
(Erikson
1994a, b, p. 206). AsIdentity and the life cycle, Erikson’s ideas on ideological formation viaprolongation of the psychosexualin the form of complete sexual abstinence, in the form of genital(Erikson 1994a, b, p. 157).What, in the name of all that is holy, we are ready to1974, p. 96).
References
Balboni, B. S. (1998).
American Catholic bishops’ understanding of clergy sexual molestation and abuse of children and
adolescents
Browning, D. S. (1973).
Inc.
De, St., Aubin, E., McAdams, D. P., & Kim, T.-C. (2003).
generations
Dillon, M., & Wink, P. (2003). American religion, generativity, and the therapeutic culture. In E. De St.
Aubin, D. P. McAdams, & T.-C. Kim (Eds.),
153–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Egerton, B., & Dunklin, R. (2002). Two-thirds of bishops let accused priests work.
News
Erikson, E. H. (1974).
Erikson, E. H. (1975).
Erikson, E. H. (1977).
Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1985).
Erikson, E. H. (1994a).
Erikson, E. H. (1994b).
insight
Freud, S. (1990).
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86 85
Through the ‘‘lens’’ of the organizational culture perspective: A descriptive study of. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Northeastern University.Generative man: Psychoanalytical perspectives. New York: Dell Publishing Co.,The generative society: Caring for future(1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.The generative society: Caring for future generations (pp.The Dallas Morning. Document ID: 0F42403FC5FBF315.Dimensions of a new identity. New York: Norton.Life history and the historical moment. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Toys and reasons: Stages in the ritualization of experience (1st ed.). New York:Childhood and society. New York: Norton.Identity and the life cycle (Paperback edition ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.Insight and responsibility; lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic(Paperback edition ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. (The Standard Edition) (J. Stachey, Ed.)
123
Hoare, C. H. (2002).
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, W. I. (1979).
Erikson’s psychosocial ego theory
Kotre, J. (1984).
University Press.
McAdams, D. P., & De St. Aubin, E. (1998).
the next generation
McAdams, D. P., Hart, H., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of generativity. In D. P. Adams & E. De St.
Aubin (Eds.),
Association Press.
Pomper, P. (1985).
Columbia University Press.
Shakeshaft, C., & Cohan, A. (1994).
should know
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/c9/fb.pdf
Sipe, A. (2004).
church
activity.html.
Sipe, A. (2005).
Comments/Gays_Priests_Pedophiles.htm
Sipe, A. (2007).
response, paragraph 57
report.htm#fourth%20phase
Special Reports: Catholic Bishops and Sex Abuse. (2003).
Erikson on development in adulthood: New insights from the unpublished papers.Personality profiles of American Roman Catholic priests evaluated in light of Erik. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Temple University.Outliving the self: generativity and the interpretation of lives. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsGenerativity and adult development: How and why we care for(1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Generativity and adult development (pp. 7–43). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalThe structure of mind in history: Five major figures in psychohistory. New York:In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools. What administrators. Hofstra University. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/. doi:ED372511.Knowledge of sexual activity and abuse within the clerical system of the Roman Catholic. February 1, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.richardsipe.com/Articles/Knowledge of sexualGays, priests, and pedophiles. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.richardsipe.com/.Preliminary expert report, fourth phase: Victims of priest sexual abuse/the bishops’. Retrieved February 2008, from http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_.The Dallas morning news. Retrieved from
http://www.dallasmorningnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/dallas/2002/priests.cgi
Stewart, A. J., & Venderwater, E. A. (1993). The course of generativity. In D. P. McAdams & A. E. De St
Aubin (Eds.),
75–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Terry, K., & Tallon, J. (2004).
deacons
org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
Wright, E. (1982).
ZENIT. (2003). Cardinals’ oath on receiving biretta. Retrieved from October 21, 2003.
bishop-accountability.org/news/2003_10_21_Zenit_CardinalsOath.htm
Zock, H. (1990).
religion
86 J Relig Health (2010) 49:73–86
.Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp.The nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by priests and. Washington, DC: John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.usccb..Erikson: Identity & religion. New York: The Seabury Press.http://www..A psychology of ultimate concern: Erik H. Erikson’s contribution to the psychology of. Atlanta: Rodopi B.V.123

ORIGINAL PAPER

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar